Higher qualification cannot substitute specific mandatory essential qualification prescribed in recruitment advertisements.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 14.02.2026, issued by Respondent No. 4 (Headquarters, Andaman and Nicobar Command), which rejected his candidature for the post of Tradesman Mate (TMM)

The recruitment advertisement dated 26.08.2023 stipulated an ITI certificate as the essential qualification

The petitioner, who possesses a Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) degree, qualified for the written examination but was found ineligible during document scrutiny as he did not hold the required ITI certificate

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to treat his BCA degree as a valid higher qualification and a Writ of Certiorari to quash the rejection letter

1. Whether a Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) degree can be treated as a valid or higher qualification for a post where an ITI certificate is the prescribed essential qualification

2. Whether the rejection of candidature without providing a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the misrepresentation of qualifications in the application form justifies the cancellation of candidature

Para 4 (prescribing essential qualifications), Para 11(b) (mandatory possession of criteria), Para 12(c) (cancellation for false/incorrect information), and Para 14 (provisional nature of candidature)

The Court followed the principle that candidates must strictly fulfill eligibility conditions mentioned in the advertisement and that the competent authority’s decision on eligibility is final

principle of "useless formality" regarding natural justice, where a hearing is unnecessary if no prejudice is caused due to undisputed facts

The Court noted that the advertisement explicitly required an ITI certificate, a condition the petitioner admittedly did not satisfy

It rejected the argument that a BCA degree should be accepted as a "higher qualification," observing that this rendered the petitioner "over-qualified" rather than eligible for the specific technical trade post

the Court highlighted that the petitioner had incorrectly claimed to possess an ITI qualification in his application form, which constituted misrepresentation

Addressing the plea regarding the lack of a personal hearing, the Court determined that because the petitioner fundamentally lacked the essential qualification and had misrepresented his status, no "grave prejudice" was caused by the absence of a hearing, as the outcome would remain unchanged

It held that the respondents were justified in refusing to issue an appointment letter because the petitioner failed to fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria and provided incorrect information in his application

The Court affirmed that provisional selection does not entitle an individual to appointment if they are found ineligible at any subsequent stage of scrutiny